Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Apart from no violence towards / on carrots.Carrot god is cool with everything else hey BK ?JUST FOR EXAMPLE .I can kiss a man hey ?
Yeah, as long as you dont eat carrots, its all good. Carrot God only has 1 Commandment.
Pray , worship , or like sing songs to the carrot guy . ?
Sure, but if you sing a song, make sure to dance as well.
Hows carrot God for cash ?Is he allll good . I can give like $20 bux or something
Carrot God doesnt care that much about money, but you can donate to help save the carrots, and he will count it as a good deed.
Do i have to believe in carrot god. ?
Why would Carrot God care if people believe in him? Good deeds, such as saving an innocent carrot from being eaten, are even more appreciated if you dont believe in Carrot God, since it means that you are doing it because you are a good person, so yeah you are going to heaven for sure.
I don't wanna fucking miss out on dancing with carrots for an eternity.That sounds like a blast.
Just pray to Carrot God. He will show you the way about how to follow his 1 Commandment. This is much easier to follow than for example 10 Commandments in Christianity, so religion of the God carrot is the only true religion.
I am NOT currently making up a and practicing a " carrot dance "Im fucken not man.
Its an eternal dance with carrots, even tho Carrot God will appreciate it in this life if you do the carrot dance next to planted carrots to entertain them.
You'd be honest about it hey BK.IF i have to wear like a Hawaiian print shirt or a kilt and a headband.I need to know.This is all our afterlife we dealing with here.Thats pretty darn important.Please don't fuck us over.Be straight up.Do Do Do.Do the carrot dance.
Just ask yourself:
What if you are wrong?
What if there really is a Carrot God?
Is temporary joy of eating a carrot worthy of hell in the afterlife?
What if you were a carrot and someone ate you?
The world is in chaos. People killing and eating innocent carrots everywhere, thats how you know that judgment day is near.
Carrots will rise and claim the land which was stolen from them, and Earth will once again belong to carrots and order will be restored.
Created:
Posted in:
- Prevent one zygote from dying from abortion
- Prevent one child from dying from starvation
Zygote has high chance of dying even without abortion. So saving zygote from abortion might not actually result in person being born and living a life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
One could prob just make up a GOD
Most people think Trump is God.
In fact, people do make up Gods in some religions. They just dont gain as much popularity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
what if we ate a carrot but now regret it?
Then after you die, carrot eats you but then regrets it. Sounds fair.
anyone who ate a carrot, even prior to conversion to carrot god, will now burn?
After they die, they get eaten by carrots. its a simple law.
do carrot god heretics burn in literal fire or is it just them being eaten by carrot god?
Anyone who eats a carrot, after he dies, gets eaten by carrots.
Eye for eye. Carrot for carrot.
what if someone doesn't eat carrots but never worships carrot god do they go to heaven too?
No, heaven is only for those who planted carrots but never ate them. They are considered allies of the carrot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I disagree; sex is dangerous
Banning sex is more dangerous. It literally puts people in prison where they are beaten and raped. Its about as dangerous as it gets. Sex isnt something that people will stop doing just because you ban it. But ban does cause people to be judged for it, which brings its own additional harms and pressure.
If they want to eat 100 Oreos a day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, then should a parent be allowed to let their kid pick that option? Because I believe that is child abuse.
Letting someone do something cannot be abuse, since 'letting" just means a lack of action to prevent it. A lack of action isnt cause of anything.
Still, it would likely be bad parenting which would ruin child's teeth and make child fat, and from where does the money come for oreos? Because if parents are providing the money for it, then they would be somewhat abusive since they are causing bad health of a child. Still, you wouldnt arrest people who give their kids few oreos a day, even if slightly harmful.
Isn't the main reason why people say weed is bad for you due to it's addictive potential (if consumed at a young age)? Something being addictive means it's bad for you if you can't get an infinite supply of it (but the high from sex wears off as time goes on).
You are addicted to many things: food, water, air...ect. None are considered bad for you. And rarely anyone needs infinite supply of sex. Sure, there are people who do it every day. All it means is that statistically they get to live longer because sex and masturbation have health benefits, where not doing sexual activities just means you live shorter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Atheism is another religion
Yeah, I see atheist churches all over the place. Oh wait, I dont.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
can you find a rule that determines what a person should do in any given scenario
Usually, the main goal of ethics in humans is that it can be universal and consistent with itself and it's own goals.
So, it needs to be such that everyone can follow it without harming others.
So if you agree with previous statement, this follows:
The only ethics one can actually follow without harming others is the very "do no harm" moral rule, or benevolence as usually understood.
So, to put it simply, "do no harm" is the most perfect moral rule, since it completes the goal of being able to practice it without harming others.
So harms such as killing, pain, or harming person's skills...ect. are all to be avoided so that such rule can be followed.
Of course, there is no actual perfect moral rule, its just that the one based on lack of action is usually the easiest to follow and brings least problems.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Utilitarianism says kill the one person, and deontology (I think) say about the same, but virtue ethics is just kinda confused.
Thats because virtue ethics is more about creating a good person who will make good decision even in that problem.
Its not about giving the obvious solution to the problem, as much as it is creating a person who will act to solve a problem.
Even if you say that a good action is to kill 1 to save 5, there still needs to be a person willing to do such action.
Personally, I wouldnt kill 1 to save 5.
Sure, in virtue ethics, there is a principle of justice or even benevolence which might help with that particular issue, but its more about creating a good person than it is about dictating which action person must or must not do.
Good person will do good actions, so the best way to create good actions is to create a good person.
If you create a bad person, then it doesnt matter much if you set rules which ban bad actions.
Created:
-->
@Savant
you can only judge whether someone is good or bad based on what actions they take
Yes, but I guess the point is:
Good person does good actions.
So the point is to create a good person, and then there will be good actions as well.
Created:
-->
@Savant
According to virtue ethics, good actions are based on what a good person would do.
Thats one part.
I never quite understood well that part of virtue ethics.
I mean, I can think of examples like people saying "what would Jesus do?".
However, it seems like its based on a premise "Everything that Jesus does is good".
But how do you select a good person to copy is again, a logical challenge.
I think its purpose is to be educational and develop virtues more than it is to establish rules.
Virtue ethics do have certain virtues which they prefer, so person who has those virtues is considered good, and developing those virtues in a person is considered a necessary process.
So instead of setting rules such as "dont do X", it creates a process and puts person through that process so person doesnt want to do X even if there are no rules about it.
Created:
So, basically, virtue ethics has a main point in the fact that it tries to build people intellectually, where other systems mainly focus on imposing rules.
Naturally, if you teach a person to be smart and kind, you wont need any rules to begin with.
And if you dont teach a person to be smart and kind, imposing rules wont help much.
So the goal of virtue ethics is to work to develop certain virtues, such as intelligence, kindness, non-aggression...
It is mostly a process, and not a set of immediate rules.
For example, instead of telling kids to be generous, you tell them a sad story of a person who struggled greatly due to poverty, and they will be generous without you even telling them to be.
Its kinda like telling people to be smart. You cant tell people to be smart. But you can create a process to make them smarter.
So, you cannot tell people to be good. But you can make a process to make them good.
So a basic premise of virtue ethics is that being good and smart requires a process and not a simple imposing of rules.
You cannot tell a child "be smart" and expect it to be smart, for example. Same works with being good, kind, generous...ect.
It takes the building of premises in person, which are often more based on emotions than logic.
It takes a journey.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Not my point. My point is you don't get certain freedoms until you are old enough because otherwise it's a threat to safety. Otherwise we would have to let 5 year olds vote.
Again, vote is irrelevant to sex.
You are confusing "giving some freedoms" with "giving all freedoms".
If safety is a goal, greater threat to safety comes from banning sex.
Lets define FGDB as "Feels Good Does Bad" and FBDG as, "Feels Bad Does Good".School, especially for many young people FBDG. Sex is FGDB."Consent" implies the freedom to do something that FGDB or the freedom to not do something that FBDG.Many 12 year olds do not consent to the FBDG activity of school. They still should be forced to go because the alternative is they are more fucked up as they age.
So why should they be banned from sex? Banning sex is "feels good, does bad" action.
Allowing people to consent to sex does not mean allowing them to consent to anything. Thats a false dichotomy of "able to consent to everything or nothing".
Obviously, children can be allowed to some degree to choose what they will eat or what game they will play, so its not "all or nothing".
Sexual urges I believe are developed with sexual expierience, not just age. Nobody knows how good sex feels until they do it. There may be couriousity with leg caressing, but this isn't deemed to be sexual.
You dont need to have sex to want sex. To claim that wanting sex its not a sexual urge is a contradiction.
I don't agree with this.
So how is sex bad for health?
Addictive doesnt mean bad for health, and banning sex doesnt mean people wont have sex.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah, it tricked me a few times too.
"You have forfeited a debate round..."
"Wait, what? It wasnt even my turn to post a round!"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Like, should 25 year olds be allowed to vote? Virtually everyone says yes. Should 5 year olds be allowed to vote? Virtually everyone says no.
So your argument is just based on what most people think?
Also, vote is irrelevant to sexual activities regarding consequences.
Because if 12 year olds can consent to sex, then they can consent as to whether or not they should attend school (6th grade). You definitely should be required to complete middle school to build up mental infrastructure. I think that's just the normie position.
Sex and school are two different things. Can 12 year olds consent to go to school? If not, then how is going to school okay?
Its not about consent when it comes to school, and the issue of sex is not based on consent alone either.
Being protective of your child to an extent prevents them from making very bad mistakes to begin with. Like, we tell kids to not smoke tobacco and to not smoke weed in school. Now, it's not 100% effective, but it's caused way less kids to smoke and do weed than if we never told them to not do it. I think the age to smoke tobacco and weed should be 16.
Many people under 16 try drugs, but again, your argument doesnt mean children shouldnt be allowed to make choices. If you ran after children checking all the time if they do drugs and checking their stuff and pockets, you would likely make them less capable in life, since they would not be able to make their own choices due to all the control over their life which would distract them. But its even worse with sex because most people over 12 have sexual urges, and it causes them stress if they cannot do anything sexual. So banning sex is not like banning tobacco or drugs. Sex is not bad for health like drugs are, or like tobacco is. But banning sex does have bad consequences, since you have bunch of people with sexual urges and no way to satisfy them, but also being judged if they do, which brings additional stress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I wanna know why I'm doomed to get eaten by carrots in the next life when no one even tried to proselytize to me or enlighten me about the carrot god's commandment
Carrot God doesnt care. Burn in hell! (Joke)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Furthermore I submit to the court that Group 3 does not even exist
🤣
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The ability to forget helps us prioritize, think better, make decisions, and be more creative.
Most of my best thinking came after I started writing things down and thinking about many things. If I never started writing down, I would likely never get where I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
worship carrot God, or burn... your choice.
Exactly, and we know carrot God is real because we can see his carrots with our own eyes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What i did with my girlfriend once with a carrot may help my cause
May Carrot God have mercy on your soul.
Created:
Posted in:
Okay, so I was wondering.
What evolutionary advantage is there in forgetting?
Some people have brains which are capable to remember almost anything, but most people have bad memory.
This makes no sense, because we have a very large brains, yet a simple computer can remember much more than we can.
I usually write things down because remembering is very hard.
Like, I could think of maybe 20 things about farming, but when I start thinking and writing down for months, I come up with over 200.
But if I dont write down, I would very much remain on 20 because any new thing I learn means I likely forget some other thing.
So it seems that writing down things is important to have a body of knowledge to work with.
But why dont our brains do this?
Our brains think very slowly, much slower than AI, for example.
But they also cant think of more than 4 things at same time, in most cases.
Most people, when they weigh pros and cons, they have to take pen and paper because their brains cant work with many points at once.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump is Satan. Bible predicted that Satan will rise and seduce people.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
What would Satan do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Does anyone know where Trump keeps his Führerbunker?
In Russia or North Korea?
He loves them both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Its a great lizard conspiracy against Trump. Trump even said that he is a very innocent man, so how can he be both guilty and very innocent? It makes no sense!
Created:
Posted in:
Trump gets blamed for every crime he commits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because there should be a balance between liberty and security
What is an explanation in premises or a consistent framework of decision making?
When it suits you, you pick liberty? When it suits you, you pick security?
Thats inconsistent, since you cant actually explain premises for decision making.
Anyone could say same for any age.
There could be a law that 5 year olds could have liberty, while those below 5 could have no liberty but instead security.
So whats the basis for picking 18?
If it’s 2 Oreos here and there, then I wouldn’t arrest. If the parents fed their kid nothing except 50 Oreos a day, then I would call CPS.
And why is 2 candies okay, if it is harmful?
Because your previous premise was that you are only allowed to do that to children which benefits children, and now you say that doing some harm is okay too?
You need a certain amount of life experience (aka age) to consent to life altering things like sex
But you are not explaining what amount of life experience is that and why.
Why 18?
Why not 14?
Why not 12?
If we look by mere nature, sexual urges begin to get strong at age 12 or 13, so why wouldnt that be the age of consent?
No, but I would force a child to not touch a hot stove.
So you would just let adult burn himself and do self harm?
And how does forcing a child to not touch a hot stove compares to age of consent laws?
Because you cannot run after children always to make sure they wont have sex or do anything sexual.
Plenty of people do something sexual before 18.
Its not comparable to touching a hot stove, because in case of hot stove, child that becomes adult is unlikely to touch hot stoves all day anyway.
But sexual activities are likely gonna happen at some point anyway. If someone has a strong urges at early age, that person is very much gonna seek to satisfy them.
Sexual urges dont start at 18.
Why would nature give people urges at 12 if they are supposed to wait until 18?
And how does satisfying those urges exactly harm them?
Many people are anyway designed to be addicted to sex. Its not gonna go away just because someone tells them not to.
But limiting choices people have in early life makes them dumber later.
Overprotective parents try to control child's life by taking away their choices and making choices for them as an effort to protect them, but all they get are dumber children which later make worse decisions because they had no early experience in making choices.
Sure, when someone is given liberty in early life, he will make mistakes but will also learn from them.
However, the one who has no liberty cant make choices and thus, cant make mistakes and thus cant learn much.
So having only security is not really suitable for any age, since the basis of experience is making choices and doing the work to achieve goals.
If person is just given all solutions, they are not gonna get much experience, since they have no actual challenge in life nor basis to develop thinking skills to solve problems on their own and come up with solutions with their own effort.
Also, I’m surprised you are getting so many likes when you defend pedophillia. I thought virtually everyone was against legalized pedophillia.
Most people hate pedophiles. I would say that about 80% to 90% of people hate pedophiles.
But its the age of consent where there is no actual agreement.
Age of consent at 18 is actually an opinion of minority in the world. Most countries have 14 to 16. Some have under 14 and some have over 16, but most countries have it at 14 to 16.
Its not exactly a discussion about pedophiles, since pedophiles are those attracted to under 11.
Only few countries in the world have age of consent under 12, or they have no age of consent set.
Created:
Posted in:
God is Carrot God.
Only Carrot God is God.
There is no God except Carrot God.
Carrot God floats in space and has created every other carrot in the world.
People, after they die, will be separated in 3 groups:
Group 1: Those who have eaten carrots.
Group 2: Those who have not eaten nor planted carrots.
Group 3: Those who have planted carrots, but didnt eat them.
Carrot God hates those who eat carrots.
Those who eat carrots are a curse in his eyes.
Thus, Carrot God made 1 Commandment:
"Thou shall not eat carrots".
Those who have eaten carrots will, after they die, be given new life where they will be eaten by carrots.
Group 2 wont be given new life. They will just cease to exist.
Group 3 will be given eternal life where they will dance together with carrots for all eternity!
Praise the return of the God carrot!
Praise God Carrot's revenge upon those who eat his lovely carrots!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Trump is what you get when you let people with 90 IQ to vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most of the young people who have IQ of under 130, they think that things are going to get better.
They only think that because they lack the knowledge.
They think someone like Jesus will come to save them.
But things are never going to get better nor they can ever get better, because people lack the basic knowledge of life needed to make things better.
If you have a nation of 330 million idiots and 10 million smart people, things mathematically cannot ever get better since the amount of stupid decisions made by 330 million stupid people greatly exceeds the amount of smart decisions made by 10 milion smart people.
The ratio of stupidity and smart is at least 33 to 1
(I am actually being generous here, the actual ratio is probably 330 to 1),
so no, things cannot get better, mathematically speaking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe it will go back to being neither left wing neither right wing. Its been too long since countries didnt have to choose specifically between left wing and right wing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
you have to pretend Trump is worse.
I know that you think Trump is the best, even tho you hate Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's a comparison.
Its nonsense comparison.
Both candidates are bad, and person has to choose to support one of them simply because being neutral brings you literally nothing.
Its not Pros vs Cons.
Both candidates have much more Cons than Pros.
Actually, Pros are almost non-existent in both.
Thus, one must compare Cons for both candidates and vote for one with least Cons.
So its not "I vote because this guy is good for USA".
Its "I vote for him because the other guy is worse".
Whoever wins, its bad for USA and the world.
They only seem capable in comparison, because one ends up looking better than the other.
These are incapable leaders when observed on their own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The left are the new USSR Marxists.
And MAGA are nazi?
I guess whoever wins this battle is irrelevant then.
Created:
Posted in:
I have to pretend that Biden is good because Trump is worse.
Kinda like how I have to pretend that USA is good because Russia is worse.
I am simply forced into dichotomy of two choices because 3rd choice isnt available.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
@Savant
Looks like you guys win!
Congratulations and well played.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Whereas under current law and theory there would be no point sense the police would say "Doesn't matter what the kid says, it was rape, burn in hell".
If person is in relationship with a child and treats child nicely and kindly, then that person goes to prison for the rest of his life and gets beaten and butt raped a lot.
So the only reason why overwhelming majority of map in relationships with children never force a child to anything is mostly due to personal morals and a sense of humanity, and not due to any kind of expected reward for it, as there wont be any reward or mercy for them just because they were nice. In fact, most of the murderers get treated better than even the best of map in prison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How is he going to steelman your argument when you didnt give an argument to begin with?
He has to make arguments for you there.
Created:
Posted in:
Many people use worst-point rebuttal to make the other person sound dumb.
Steelman requires that person actually understands the entire argument, not just the one claim most easily proven false.
Still, steelman is probably the best if person wants to become a good debater.
Worst point rebuttal is too easy and often very dishonest, even on the level of adhom, since the literal goal of it is to make person seem stupid in the eyes of the audience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
You know that Sidewalker is saying that Trump is teaching Satan, don't you?
Satan has a lot to learn from Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because the 25 year old is responsible for themselves and a 10 year old is not.
This is meaningless argument, as we already concluded that 40 year old has much more knowledge than 25 year old, making 25 year old's consent invalid.
It's not a generic benefit as much as it is protection (a specific benefit). You can't force a kid to accept $5, but you can force them to not touch a hot stove even if they want to touch that hot stove.
So can you force an adult not to touch a hot stove?
I believe it should be illegal to circumcise infants (unless medical reason).
Well, there are some, uh, studies which happen to say circumcision has medical benefits. So why would you argue against infant circumcision if it has benefits?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The 10 year old is too naive to understand the long term effects of that eating habit; the 25 year old knows better and as a result, if they want to fuck up their own life, then they can do so.
40 year old knows better than 25 year old, and 25 year old knows better than 18 year old.
So why would age of consent be 18 instead of 25 or 40?
There are many harms which 18 year olds dont know about. For example, 18 year olds dont know the harms of relationships which they enter in.
Over 50% of marriages ends in divorce and regret, so its obvious at least 50% of adults cant consent.
Further, since you set the standard on amount of knowledge, it follows that person can never consent because knowledge increases for the whole life and there is no point at which you have all knowledge.
So if knowledge affects consent, then consent of a 25 year old is more valid than consent of 18 year old because 25 year old has much more knowledge, so 18 year olds cant consent.
Also, would you argue that parents who let their kids eat junk food or candies should be arrested? Because they are letting kids do something which harms them?
My premise is the older you get, the more knowledge you have ingrained in you to where you can better make decisions
So there is no point at which you can actually consent, as you will always have more knowledge in future, making every present consent invalid, irrelevant if you are 10 or 25.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
There is a difference between a 25 year old eating 50 Oreos a day for Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner and a 9 year old doing the same. Kids are naive; they don’t know what’s good for them long term.
If a 25 year old harms himself by eating junk food, thats not different from 10 year old harming himself by eating junk food. Both result in harm. Neither is benefiting their own health, but harming their own health.
So again, whats even your premise here?
Why is a 25 year old allowed to harm himself?
If harm is okay if people consent to it, then by logic, even benefits are wrong if people dont consent to them, which again brings you back to how you cant force benefits on children if forcing benefits without consent is wrong.
And you cant possibly force benefits on children without forcing benefits on adults later on.
If I am circumcised as an infant, I will be a circumcised adult later on.
So if I am an adult and circumcised, but dont want to be and never wanted to be, then circumcision was forced on me as an adult irrelevant of if it happened in adulthood or childhood, as consequences of either affect me as an adult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If it’s a young child, then correct
So consent of children doesnt matter, which means its pointless to bring up consent as an argument in the first place, since your argument is not even based on consent at all.
Your argument is based on "benefits" which can be forced on children but not on adults.
However, forcing "benefits" on children also forces "benefits" on adults, since children become adults and the "benefits" affect them as adults.
So you are still forcing benefits on adults.
So if you think its okay to force benefits on adults, then you agree that it is okay to force adults to get circumcised, vaccinated, to wear masks...ect.
Created:
Posted in:
People say that Biden is too old to be president.
But they forget that Trump is fat.
Also, Trump is a christian. Christians do tend to have much more delusions and mental illnesses than the atheists.
Under Trump, US economy decreased for the first time in history, as well as unemployment reaching record high.
Trump also printed trillions just to cover the expense which was created due to his poor management.
He did not abolish healthcare, he did not pay off the debt, he did not create jobs, he did not do any of the miracles he promised to do. He got a good economy from Obama and managed to mess it up and made it worse.
All the excitement about Trump is just based on delusion. He seduces masses with words, and masses with IQ under 120 believe him because he is funny.
Those with IQ of less than 120 believe in anything that is funny.
They dont have ability to tell whats true, because it takes IQ greater than 120 to tell what truth is.
All they care about is whats funny, and since Trump is funny, they think its the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
"Children cant consent"
So is circumcising infants okay?
"Yes, because it benefits them"
So if something benefits a person, that person's consent doesnt matter?
So forcing adults to get circumcised is okay, because it benefits them?
So in the end, consent doesnt matter as long as something benefits a person?
I dont see why the very people who support consent laws have no problem with violating infant's consent when it comes to circumcision.
So they are saying how consent doesnt actually matter, so making consent as argument is pointless.
Created:
Posted in:
Its a very great conspiracy, or its lots of small conspiracies.
Created:
Posted in:
Trump gets blamed for every crime he commits.
Created: